Borrowing it
Nothing to install: this file belongs to utensils/claudette. Take a copy, put it at the same path in your own repository, and replace the rules that are about this project with yours.
curl -O https://raw.githubusercontent.com/utensils/claudette/main/.claude/commands/pull-request.mdgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/utensils/claudetteWrote this? Show the measurements
A badge with what this costs and how it scanned, read live from this page, so it follows the numbers instead of freezing them. Markdown for a README, HTML for a documentation site or a project page.
[](https://agentmods.dev/commands/utensils/claudette/pull-request)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/commands/utensils/claudette/pull-request"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/commands/utensils/claudette/pull-request/github.svg" alt="Measured on agentmods" height="20"></a>Or the 80×15 button, for a site that already has a row of RSS and ATOM ones. Only the verdict fits; the numbers stay here.
<a href="https://agentmods.dev/commands/utensils/claudette/pull-request"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/commands/utensils/claudette/pull-request.svg" alt="Reviewed on agentmods" width="80" height="20"></a>What it costs to keep this loaded
Counted locally with the o200k_base tokenizer, which is exact for GPT models; Claude uses its own tokenizer and its counts differ. Treat this as one consistent yardstick across the catalogue rather than a bill. Prices are per million input tokens.
| Model | Per session | Once invoked |
|---|---|---|
| Fable 5.1 | $0.00000 | $0.00658 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00000 | $0.00263 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00000 | $0.00132 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00000 | $0.00066 |
Grade A, and why
pull-request scanned grade A with 0 findings against 26 rules in 11 categories — prompt injection, anti-refusal, data exfiltration, privilege escalation, supply chain, agent snooping, system-prompt leakage, SSRF and excessive agency — measured 1mo ago.
A static scan of the body, not an audit. Every finding is printed with the line that produced it so you can judge whether it matters here. A mod is markdown that instructs an agent; that is exactly why what it instructs is worth reading.
Nothing flagged
None of the 26 patterns this scan looks for appear in this file: no shell pipes, no recursive deletes, no credential paths, no hidden text, no instruction-override or anti-refusal phrasing, no agent-config snooping. That is not a guarantee, it is the absence of the things that are checkable.
How it starts
The opening of the file, as written. The whole thing — 53 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Open a pull request for the current branch against main.
Arguments
$ARGUMENTS— Passdraftto create a draft PR (e.g.,/pull-request draft). If omitted, creates a regular PR.
Steps
-
Pre-flight checks — Before opening the PR, ensure the code is ready:
- Detect the project's toolchain from config files (e.g.,
package.json,Makefile,mix.exs,Cargo.toml,pyproject.toml) - Run the project's format command (e.g.,
prettier,mix format,cargo fmt,ruff format) - Run the project's lint command (e.g.,
eslint,mix credo,cargo clippy,ruff check) - Run the project's typecheck command if applicable (e.g.,
tsc --noEmit,mypy,mix dialyzer) - Run the project's test command (e.g.,
jest,mix test,cargo test,pytest) - If any check fails, fix the issues before proceeding
- Detect the project's toolchain from config files (e.g.,
-
Rebase on origin/main — Ensure the branch is up to date:
- Run
git fetch origin main - Run
git rebase origin/main - If there are conflicts, resolve them one file at a time:
- Read the conflicting file to understand both sides
- Apply the correct resolution preserving intent from both branches
- Run
git add <file>andgit rebase --continue
- After rebase, re-run pre-flight checks to ensure nothing broke
- Run
-
Analyze changes — Review all commits on this branch vs
origin/main:- Run
git log origin/main..HEAD --onelineto see all commits - Run
git diff origin/main...HEADto see the full diff
- Run
-
Draft the PR — Prepare the PR title and body:
-
Title: Use a concise, descriptive title (under 70 characters)
-
Body should include these sections:
Summary
A succinct description of what changed and why. Include a mermaid diagram if the changes involve schema changes, new flows, or architectural changes.
Complexity Notes
Flag any areas of complexity, risk, or non-obvious behavior that reviewers should pay close attention to. If there are none, omit this section.
-
What this file has done since we first saw it
Hashed on every crawl. A supply-chain change to an agent config is a question of when, not whether, so the history is kept rather than the latest state alone.
- 1mo ago First seen · 53 lines · 0 tokens per session scan A 528550d93e65
pull-request is a command published in the GitHub repository utensils/claudette (83 stars, last pushed 1mo ago), licensed MIT. It costs nothing until one of its globs matches a file; then it loads 658 tokens. A static security scan graded it A with 0 findings. No closer match exists in the catalogue, so it is treated as the original; first seen 2026-08-30.
Other commands, from other repositories
dashboard-session-diff
Show file changes (git diff) for a session by id-prefix. Usage /dashboard:session-diff . Runs locally, no LLM.
dashboard-git-branches
List git branches for the current dir (current marked ). Runs locally, no LLM.
AGENTS
Run the current binary in a temporary test repository with a real PTY. Use tmux-cli when available, capture terminal output, and inspect -vv logs when behavior depends on timing or shell state. Avoid treating a piped command as proof of interactive behavior.
Hexagonal.Refactor
Your task is to fix the reported issues in the current branch.
Hexagonal.Gatekeeper
Your role is to perform a deep, architecture-focused code review on a specific branch. You must validate that all changes strictly follow Hexagonal Architecture (Ports & Adapters) principles and align with the existing codebase patterns.
afsr
Review feature spec - improve the spec itself before implementation (shortcut for feature-spec-review).